Is it fair for moderators to be promoting politics here?

[Diogenes]

Secondly, Conservatives have consistently supported the elimination of various agencies, such as the NEA, the Department of Education, the REC, the Department of Energy, etc.

And they have consistently supported balancing the budget and reducing spending.

Your point is?

Downward is not sideways.

[Diogenes]

Seriously. Of all the problems (especially economic problems) facing the nation, you want to focus on drug prohibition?

$50 bn a year in direct costs. About $100 bn a year more in indirect costs (things like higher auto insurance to pay for replacement radios, welfare for families without a father, etc.) And 4,000 or more dead Mexicans a year. I suppose you can't count them. They are not even Americans. Maybe we could count the 2,000 innocent Americans a year caught in the crossfire.

But yeah. It times of economic crisis it makes perfect sense to piss away between $50 bn and $150 bn a year. If we do the typical 10 year accounting we are looking at between $ 1/2 trillion and $1 1/2 trillion. In America.

And our anti-drug antics in South America are losing us friends. Small price to pay in order to send the right message I suppose.

Here is another distortion: grow op stores. There are two in my town of 150,000. So that means equipment that has less than economic value except for the black market and extra electricity used where sunlight would do.

But I propose doing the conservative thing. Go back to the laws of 1912 WRT drugs. They served us OK for 123 years of the Republic and for over 100 years before that.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.


Your numbers are squishy. They imply that 100% of the cost is the result of suppressing peoples freedom to get high, when in fact those people who currently occupy themselves with the illicit drug trade, would very likely be occupying themselves with other illicit activity were the bottom to fall out of the drug market.

Worrying about the drug issue is (in my opinion) like worrying that the Deck chairs on the titanic aren't arranged in a sufficiently neat and artistic manner.

[alexjrgreen]

those people who currently occupy themselves with the illicit drug trade, would very likely be occupying themselves with other illicit activity were the bottom to fall out of the drug market.

There's some evidence that the market creates the behaviour. Once upon a time, Britain used to transport convicts to Australia. Somehow the number of criminals in Britain didn't go down, and the number of criminals in Australia didn't keep going up.

[MSimon]

Diogenese,

Of course she was against it. I'm against it. And I know the context. For those needing an education:

Atlas Shrugged

And yes it is behind the concept of statism. The most powerful advocates of statism go around mumbling under their breath "there ought to be a law". The same people who have little plaques on the wall with the motto:

Everything I like is illegal, immoral, or fattening.

[KitemanSA]

You can't be serious ?

The vast majority of voters are INCREDIBLY ignorant. Most of them are herds which are steered this way or that by pretty faces and media soundbites. Very few voters actually know anything about how the government functions, or what is this or that candidate's position on various issues.

This may or may not be so, but the vast majority of NON-voters are probably very aware of the candidates and are sick of being limited to such NON-options.

It is my opinion, that if a person doesn't know what they are doing, their opinion is worse than useless. If they cannot vote for a candidate because they believe his policies and ideas are the best way to address the problems of the day, then they are too stupid to vote because their opinion is no more intelligent than a coin flip.

Are you REALLY of the opinion that it was best to vote for either O'Bama or McCain? Do you REALLY think that they have good policies and ideas? I certainly don't think either of the candidates were worthy of support. Both their ideas and platforms SUCKED big-time. Voting for either of them would have been increadably stupid. I DISLIKED one of them more than the other. I wish I could have voted against that moron. But I have been disenfranchized, like maybe 3/4 of potential voters in America. Perhaps that explains the routinely low voter turn-out.

Incumbency is the means by which truly vile politicians (Ted Kennedy) retain their positions because of stupid and apathetic voters.

If the good voters of MA were to have been allowed to vote AGAINST that murderer, I doubt he would have remained in office much past Chappaquiduck (sp?)

We don't need more voters... we need more intelligent voters who will do their homework and figure out who is best to serve our nation based on their ideas, not on their ability to pay off constituency groups.

We need to allow the voters to vote their opinion, positive OR negative.

[MSimon]

The problem is that once you create a class of criminals and then destroy their trade they have no marketable skills.

This gives a hangover. Some of the criminals will go into heavier forms of criminality (robbery vs selling contraband). But those kinds of criminals are easier to catch.

It took 40 years to get over the hangover from alcohol prohibition. Corrupt cops, judges on the take, and gangsters. I see no reason why the transition from our current mess will be any more pleasant.

[Diogenes]

those people who currently occupy themselves with the illicit drug trade, would very likely be occupying themselves with other illicit activity were the bottom to fall out of the drug market.

There's some evidence that the market creates the behaviour. Once upon a time, Britain used to transport convicts to Australia. Somehow the number of criminals in Britain didn't go down, and the number of criminals in Australia didn't keep going up.

Very interesting point, and it reinforces one of my own pet theories about Human nature and society.

In any given population, most of it will be realtively ordinary people but some part of it will be criminals.

If you eliminate the bottom group of criminals, ( just for the sake of argument, you kill them all.) then a new criminal class will arise out of the remaining population.

Life seems to fill every niche in whatever habitat nature creates. As long as it is evolutionarily beneficial, a criminal class will continue to exist. It is like the bottom step of a set of stairs. If you remove it, the next step becomes the new bottom step.


While we're on the topic, i've always postulated the existence of a class of people which I refer to as "Contrarians." These are people who don't know what they think until they find out what other people think so that they can be on the opposite side.

I know *I've* met people like this, and I suspect all the rest of you have as well. MSimon sometimes comes to mind. *I've* been accused of being a contrarian, and while it may be my initial instinct to be contrary, I like to think i've successfully trained myself out of most of those impulses.

In any case, back to the criminals. The criminal component of humanity will always remain, but it can and should be optimized. (held at as low of a level as possible.)


Human social dynamic is well. dynamic. It rearranges itself in accordance with whatever conditions are prevalent. Kill the leaders, new leaders will emerge from the remnants. Kill criminals, new criminals will emerge from the remnants.

Every type of person fits a niche in society that gets filled one way or the other.

[Diogenes]

Are you REALLY of the opinion that it was best to vote for either O'Bama or McCain? Do you REALLY think that they have good policies and ideas? I certainly don't think either of the candidates were worthy of support. Both their ideas and platforms SUCKED big-time. Voting for either of them would have been increadably stupid. I DISLIKED one of them more than the other. I wish I could have voted against that moron. But I have been disenfranchized, like maybe 3/4 of potential voters in America. Perhaps that explains the routinely low voter turn-out.

I think John McCain was unquestionably better qualified than what we ended up with. Does that mean I think he was the best choice. Not really. I preferred Fred Thompson.

Mr. Big Spender has never even ran a lemonade stand. His only two qualifications for office were that he wasn't George Bush, and he's black. The simpleminded part of the nation wanted him as it's national hood ornament because of what he represents, not because of any real qualifications.

H3ll, *I* was happy that the nation was willing to elect a black President, I just wish they had picked someone who was actually competent. ( Like Walter Williams.)

(a bit of history here. After David McCurdy announced he was going to run for the Senate, *I* was the first person to call J.C. Watt's office (at the corporation commission) to pledge my money and my support if he would run for Dave McCurdy's vacated seat. He did, I did, we did, and we were very proud of him, although he did have a bad habit of listening too closely to the Republican establishment. )

[KitemanSA]

I think John McCain was unquestionably better qualified than what we ended up with. Does that mean I think he was the best choice. Not really. I preferred Fred Thompson.

A better qualified crook is not necessarily a good thing. Both of them sucked rocks.

Ask yourself, if you had the choice, wouldn't you rather have been able to vote against Obama, seeing as how you didn't really like MaCain? Given the (effectively) two party system we now have, a vote against Obama would have been numerically similar to a vote for McCain; but don't you think a vote against Obama would have sent a more accurate message?

[alexjrgreen]

After carefully reviewing the six pages of submissions on this important issue, I think I can venture a tentative conclusion:

Q Is it fair for moderators to be promoting politics here?

A In moderation...

[Diogenes]

I think John McCain was unquestionably better qualified than what we ended up with. Does that mean I think he was the best choice. Not really. I preferred Fred Thompson.

A better qualified crook is not necessarily a good thing. Both of them sucked rocks.

Ask yourself, if you had the choice, wouldn't you rather have been able to vote against Obama, seeing as how you didn't really like MaCain? Given the (effectively) two party system we now have, a vote against Obama would have been numerically similar to a vote for McCain; but don't you think a vote against Obama would have sent a more accurate message?

Yes, but there's a better way. Years ago (15?20?) I read a book (Archimedes revenge.) That had a section which discussed the flaws in the Democratic Ballot system. The author pointed out scenarios in which the result of an election could very likely be someone that the majority of people didn't like and didn't want.

He proposed various ideas to correct the problem, and I believe the best proposal was to get rid of the stark choice type of ballot. He proposed that voters would chose their preference by numbering the candidates.

You pick the person you like the most, and give them a number 1. You pick the person you would like next and give them a number 2, and so on. , if your first choice doesn't win a majority, then perhaps your second choice will be more acceptable to most people.

If such a system had been in place in 1992, Bill Clinton would have never been president. (Ross Perot split the vote that would have ordinarily gone to the Republican. )

In any case, I believe the idea incorporates your desire to vote against somebody, and it allows for having elections without runoffs, plus it gives people the opportunity to elect a second choice that is more acceptable to a majority, rather than a first choice which might be absolutely unacceptable to a large plurality. (Bill Clinton)

[IntLibber]

I've seen the diagram. While it is convenient, I don't think it's comprehensive. If both Libertarians and Conservatives want to make the government smaller, how is that 90 degrees?

My observation is that in practice conservatives want to grow government. Just in a different direction than progressives. And maybe a little less.

It always comes down to, "look at what great good we can do by putting a (government) gun to people's heads."

We can eliminate alcoholism.
We can eliminate drug use.
And the current favorite: "we can stop abortion".

You have to wonder why no conservative has ever said: "Our message is so good we don't need or want government. We can just change people's minds."

Exactly, and why I'm a Libertarian. As a youngster I was a Reaganite til I figured out the GOP didn't live up to its claimed ideas. They talk the libertarian talk but don't walk it, on economics. Dems talk the libertarian talk on social issues, but don't walk it either. Both sides say what their polls tell them to say to win the election, then they get on about serving their real constituents, the people who funded them and own them.

The left has a point about republicans coddling big businesses with various forms of corporate welfare and tolerating anti-competitive activities. Conversely, the left is more guilty of not only intentionally making life difficult for big business beyond needed enforcement functions, they also make life difficult for small business people, and make it tough to get into small business, because business owners are far more likely to vote republican. You force an entrepreneur to be a salary employee, he's going to care about belonging to a union, getting health care paid for by someone else not himself. Employees of small businesses are also more likely to vote democrat if they become unemployed too.

In my 41 years, I've determined that the two major parties are beholden to different industries. The dems belong to the bar associations and bankers and unions. When they need a republican president tossed out of office, the bankers mess up the economy so the republican president gets the blame, while labor raises a stink about benefits and such, or increases strikes.

The republicans belong to the agribusiness, mining, and oil businesses, as well as the defense industry.

[KitemanSA]

... The author pointed out scenarios in which the result of an election could very likely be someone that the majority of people didn't like and didn't want.

He proposed various ideas to correct the problem, and I believe the best proposal was to get rid of the stark choice type of ballot. He proposed that voters would chose their preference by numbering the candidates.

You pick the person you like the most, and give them a number 1. You pick the person you would like next and give them a number 2, and so on. ...

This is known as single transferable voting. However, it has the same flaw that all such methods do. Eventually, if none of my desired candidates win, I am forecd to vote FOR someone despicable, or not vote at all. If I could vote preference-wise for the ones I want, then against the one I hate most, that would be just fine. This is known a full option single transferable voting.

All voting schemes, (at least all I've seen so far) can be improved by allowing full option voting (the ability to vote AGAINST as well as for).

[krenshala]

After carefully reviewing the six pages of submissions on this important issue, I think I can venture a tentative conclusion:

Q Is it fair for moderators to be promoting politics here?

A In moderation...

I have to agree with this.

[hanelyp]

I personally like approval voting, casting your vote in favor of as many candidates as you like, or could at least tolerate. The voter ranking candidates is from a strictly mathematical standpoint better, but can get messy as the ballot gets longer. Either way, I like the prospect of minor candidates being on more equal footing with major candidates without the risk of being spoilers. I also like the idea of candidates being elected based on broad support rather than intensity of support like the standard 'vote for one' tends to produce. I suspect that had one of these voting systems been in place for certain primaries last year Fred Thompson would have done much better.